The right wing interpretation of the "reality check" White House site is that somehow because it encourages people to let them know through their blog if they believe dialogue they have heard surrounding the health care debate is false, that Obama is somehow creating a police state. Just the latest fear-mongering tactic by right wing talk show hosts. I'm not sure how asking folks if they've heard something that doesn't sound right to let the White House know so that they can address the issue, is wrong really.
But, of course, to turn the debate into madness...it helps to paint a picture of civil liberties being taken away. So, let's consider the erosion of civil liberties under previous administrations and see if the current blog comment comes close.
President John Adams, Federalist: Alien & Sedition Act of 1798.
An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, Penalty on libelling the government, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
The enaction of such law ultimately led to Thomas Jefferson's election to President and abolition of the act. Wow....can you imagine if this was on the books today? But we don't have to go back 200 years to see an attempt at the erosion of civil liberties.
President G. W. Bush, Republican: The Patriot Act of 2001
The acronym stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
If you ask me, the two above seem far more reaching in undermining our civil liberties than the White House asking to be given the opportunity to correct misleading information. While either one of the Sedition & Patriot Acts may have seemed appropriate given circumstances at the time, I believe we need to think more broadly as to how such laws may be interpreted and acted upon by later administrations and future generations.
I'm not defending the proposed health care plan, but I believe that it is terribly unfortunate that rather than have an honest debate concerning the factual problems with health insurance costs in the country.....which may lead to a well-crafted compromise.....certain faction
s would rather incite outrage to derail any possible reform. But then, it is to their benefit......and it is their protected right. My thoughts on health care reform on a later post.
s would rather incite outrage to derail any possible reform. But then, it is to their benefit......and it is their protected right. My thoughts on health care reform on a later post.In the mean time, should any of you hear of disparaging remarks concerning the author of Hoosier Happenings, Hoosier Reborn, I would greatly appreciate knowing. Could you please respond to this post with any malicious or otherwise outrageous comments you have witnessed against this site or its author, false or factual. I have an angry little weiner dog that will be unleashed to quiet such rhetoric.
8 comments:
I see merits to both ends of the healthcare storm that is to come....however, in instituting socialized healthcare, I'm more inclined to believe that the elderly folks in our population will get the brunt of the healthcare woes. That, in turn, could lead an increase in government control on who does have the 'right' to live and die, and what exactly is covered by our tax dollars---i.e., abortion, etc. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars going there...but, that's just me.
Insurance companies are already rationing health care....those with the "richest plans" get the best care. Those with limted provision policies are turned down for services frequently. The "live and die" issue is simply an unfounded scare tactic promulgated by the likes Sara Palin. At a minimum everyone should have to buy some form of health coverage and have a family physician. Even if the premium is subsized for the poor, we can no longer have a system that drives people to seek care in Emergency Rooms the most expensive source of care.
HR there isn't enough space here to report all that is being said about you!(not really hehe!) Wingman
I don't believe i should be forced to buy anything. the reality is that i already am forced to buy ahead of time medical care provided by the government that i may never use as a senior citizen. my perception is that the role of the government is to protect the people from exploitation and monopolies that would constrain the freedom to pursue life, liberty and hapiness. In regards to the health issue, would it make sense that the government should have been regulating insurance prices, particularly of malpractice insurance for medical institutions, the cost of which gets shuffled along to the patient. And perhaps its judicial branch could have been making sensible judgements on ridiculous cases so that people didn't have to worry about being sued for serving hot coffee or the like. (now i understand that if you leave a junior mint in someone during a surgery that you should loose your medical lisence.)
Jeb, lets assume that you have no coverage because you haven't been "forced" to do so for the sake of argument. Now you fall off a cliff somewhere in Backwater Arizona in say a national forest. Some government provided rescue agency helicopters you to a hospital. Now you are treated there for a fews days to recover from the head injury caused by the fall from the cliff because you were too stupid to observe the warning signs. The Bill is far too large for you to afford so JEB who PAYS FOR YOUR STUPIDITY I DO AND EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO BUYS INSURANCE TO PROTECT THEEMSELVES>>>THE COST OF MY CARE IS INCREASED TO PAY FOR YOU SHORT SIDED ARROGANCE, YOU BOOB!
Indeed we all pay, those who pay anything, for everyone's health care. I don't really want to pay so much, as we do now, for others' healthcare so I like the idea that private insurers, who I will stay with, will have to compete against a baseline of services and associated costs for the masses. Above and beyond the baseline we will still all be able to access PPO's, specialists and such, if we so choose and choose to pay. If someone doesn't choose to pay then at a minimum they will have access to preventative and responsive treatments, let's hope they begin using the former. When C-Level execs at health care companies make tens to hundreds of millions and the companies themselves are turning billion dollar profits then there is far too much fat that can be trimmed for the benefit of all. Trim away! The insurers and health care companies certainly aren't generating those profits through increased efficiencies or superior services across the board. The administrators are incented to deny: claims, services, the truth, you name it.
All I'm going to say about healthcare is that if they want true reform, they should start with tort reform.
Regarding malicious rumors about HR, I recently heard he owns stock in Wal-Mart and even moonlights there as a greeter.
Well, I didn't intend for this post to focus on health care, rather the tenor of the debate. I'll do a health care post soon...but remember, let's keep it civil.
Regarding malicious talk-I'm waiting for a blog to appear to counter my posts...kinda like the "publicus secundus". lol.
Walmart? Really Natalie? Ouch, that's painful.
HR,
Just because some folk are paranoid doesn't mean the president isn't out to get them and their health care:)
Honestly, some of the conservative pundits should be embarrassed!
Post a Comment